Why evolution is wrong: peanut butter

[tik 🪀✨]

Chuck Missler Disproves Evolution With Jar Of Peanut Butter
Source: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/50013/ (contains video)

Transcript:

PERSON 1:
I would say this: Any theory on the origin of life on the earth, or any other planet as far as that's concerned, is a fairytale.

PERSON 2:
'A fairytale', pure and simple. Life from non-life apart from God's direct intervention is 'a fairytale'. But despite that obvious truth, evolutionists continue to build their supposedly scientific case in a foundation that virtually rules out everything that follows after it.

NARRATOR:
Evolution teaches that energy, such as lightning or heat, plus matter, can occasionally create new life. Yet, our entire food industry rests on the fact that this can never happen.

If we examine a jar of peanut butter, it contains matter and is exposed to light and heat. But we never find new life inside unless an outside life contaminates it.

CHUCK MISSLER:
If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally, by subjecting this [jar of peanut butter] to energy, end up with new life. Now we go down to the store, and if I open this jar of peanut butter, maybe not often but on some occasion, I should find new life inside.

And so, when we open the jar of peanut butter, we look in there, [pause] there's no new life. And, [laughing] aren't you glad, okay? Now, you may smile at this, but hopefully you'll never forget it. Because you and I conduct, collectively, over a billion experiments every year, and we've done that for virtually a hundred years. And we never encounter new life. In fact, the entire food industry of the world depends on the fact that evolution doesn't happen.

[7,052,770]

Wow, I'm a creationist now...

[tik 🪀✨]

Wow, I'm a creationist now...

Thank you for embracing the peanut butter.

[Joe Republic]

Hey, that critique of evolution is nowhere near as retarded as this one.

[Dr. Cynic]

I still believe in Evolution, but this gave me a strong craving for peanut butter.

[Speed of Sound]

If we were allowed to discredit creationism with this pathetic a reason, we would have done away with it years ago.l

[Gabu]

Evolution deals with the genetic mutation of already existing life into new forms of life, which has been definitively seen on a micro scale in bacteria.  I really wish that people attempting to disprove evolution would at least learn all of what is being asserted under the umbrella of "evolution".

[John Dibble]

Wow, just wow. I don't think I've ever heard a more ignorant and asinine argument against evolution EVER. The banana one was pretty funny too.

[KEmperor]

Peanut butter is a serious carcinogen, I suggest you take it more seriously guys.

[Hatman 🍁]

Evolution deals with the genetic mutation of already existing life into new forms of life, which has been definitively seen on a micro scale in bacteria.  I really wish that people attempting to disprove evolution would at least learn all of what is being asserted under the umbrella of "evolution".

I think this diatribe is actually in reference to the belief of some scientists about how life was first created. Of course it makes no sense as the conditions  on earth when life was created is not the same as the inside of a jar of peanut butter.

[Padfoot]

The origin of life and evolution are two different things.

[Gabu]

I think this diatribe is actually in reference to the belief of some scientists about how life was first created. Of course it makes no sense as the conditions  on earth when life was created is not the same as the inside of a jar of peanut butter.

Of course that's what it's in reference to.  And that isn't evolution, or, at least, is not the bulk of evolution.  But this guy seems to claim that that is the entirety of what evolution is about.

[The Dowager Mod]

Was it chunky?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Peanut butter is a serious carcinogen, I suggest you take it more seriously guys.

lol

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The banana thing makes more sense than most creationist arguments I've heard, at least it's based on facts and not 100% junk science like every other case for creationism.

[Verily]

The banana thing makes more sense than most creationist arguments I've heard, at least it's based on facts and not 100% junk science like every other case for creationism.

What is "the banana thing"? That bananas can longer reproduce sexually and are thus a doomed species without human intervention? That's obviously the result of artificial selection by humans, not an argument against evolution.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

See the video posted earlier in the thread.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It more disproves spontaneous generation, I mean evolution is a farce but this is far from the reason.

[John Dibble]

It more disproves spontaneous generation, I mean evolution is a farce but this is far from the reason.

Well, the actual concept of spontaneous generation was disproved long ago - IIRC that concept was the idea that things like insects and whatnot just appeared by the will of God while people weren't looking under the right conditions. For example, if I leave a piece of meat out then maggots and flies will spring to life from it, probably because God did it. Of course science showed this to be wrong - Francesco Redi did an experiment using meat in sealed and unsealed containers to be precise. If these people are trying to act as if those supporting evolution support that theory, they're barking up the wrong tree even if they're correct that this kind of generation of life does not occur.

What the actual major scientific theory for the origin of life is is that in earlier times the makeup of Earth's atmosphere and oceans was quite different. The conditions allowed for the creation of organic molecules, which later managed to group together by chance and become extremely simple single celled organisms. Though the exact conditions are not known nor have they been replicated, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that the creation of organic molecules is possible using the gasses that were thought to be the main components of a much younger Earth's atmosphere. However, the peanut butter argument is again invalid simply because the conditions for creating a jar of peanut butter are not the same as those of Earth at the time life theoretically came about.